Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Blinded by Culture

The truth (or value) of any new theory is measured in two
ways: does it make accurate (and verifiable) predictions about the way nature
operates; and if so, does it offer a better explanation than the existing
theory?

The Greeks of Homer (or Oedipus) weren't fools, but they
could be foolish in the same way that children are when they believe in fairies,
Santa Claus, and other mythical creatures. Are we smarter than Aristotle or
Oedipus? Probably not. But we are better
informed which means we have access to better information. We also have the ability to think critically
about what is true and what isn't true, which is something that people in Homer's
day lacked. We don't burn incense or sacrifice bulls or chickens on altars to
bring us good fortune. We use logic, technology, and a knowledge of the past to
inform our decisions regarding the future. We don't believe in fate, but we do
believe in DNA, cause and effect, and statistical probability.

When it comes to Freud's work on dreams, there continues today
to be much doubt whether it even qualifies as science. Much of it is highly speculative,
just as his work on infantile sexuality remains mired in controversy. But a
theory doesn't always have to be true in order to be useful. Dreaming is so
common a human experience as to be almost universal. Often, people are troubled
by dreams and are confused, embarrassed, and even ashamed by the content of
their dreams. Freud had the insight that dreams are connected with feelings,
especially feelings that are often suppressed, such as erotic feelings for
other people. He developed a theory about why people have such dreams, and how these dreams be interpreted in a useful way.

What is not clear to many people today is how Freud's early work
on dreams qualifies as science rather than mythology. A person goes to her analyst and describes a dream. How does
the analyst know that the person lying on his couch is not inventing the dream
as she speaks? Well, there are techniques for separating lies from truth, but
are the same techniques able to distinguish hallucinations from dreams? Maybe
or maybe not. But people do not spend large sums of money to lie on a couch and
discuss their dreams if they don't get some benefit. The proof is in the
pudding. Some people feel better going to a priest and giving their confession.
Other people go to a psychiatrist and feel better after talking to someone who
listens to what they have to say. Even after 2,000 years of human development,
our mind is largely a mystery. We don't understand ourselves, nor do we
understand the people around us. We live in confusion and we experience anxiety
over our inability to control our lives. What Freud attempted to do, with his
theory and his practice, was to provide relief from anxiety.

The popular word in use today is stress. And it is far from
certain whether this condition is related to our biology or our way of living.
Kierkegaard believed that anxiety or stress is existential, meaning it is part
of the human condition. Freud, on the other hand, believed that anxiety is
treatable and that the ultimate goal of psychiatry should be to make people
feel better (or less miserable) than they otherwise would. Of course, Aristotle,
along with the Greek dramatists like Sophocles, might say the same thing:
tragedy makes people feel better about themselves. Wasn't this the whole point
of "katharsis"-- the purgation or cleansing of our soul which, in
today's language, we describe as the release of anxiety?